Yesterday at my photoclub we had a lecture about a wildlife photographer Nick Brandt.

Those are really jawdropping images and what appeals to me most is that he only shoots on film. One more thing to blow your mind ... he doesn't use tele lenses.

Now what is really strange is his strange usage of DoF, just as if there are two different planes of focus (Elephant Mother & Two Babies, Kudu Against Sky, Two Rhinoes). The only hint he himself has given is that he does it "in camera" and he doesn't have a tilt-shift lens either. Does anyone have clue on how this could be achieved?

His photos are obviously photoshoped to me. There is no way you can get rough edges like that yet still have a sharp subject. The dodging and burning looks photoshop too. Yeah you can do it in the darkroom but it's so much easier to do it in photoshop.

The focus is a result of using medium format with wide apertures and then probably "exaggerated" in photoshop.

You can't get two planes of focus from one lens unless you had a way to mask off part of your film in-camera and do two exposures at two focus positions. I think they've got to be photoshopped, too. They are really amazing pictures, though.

He might be taking two photos (one in focus and the other slightly out of focus) and then blending them together in photoshop. I'm not sure how you could mask off part of the film and make it look as if it were photoshopped straight out of the camera?

Perhaps Chris Lange can help us since he uses the same Pentax 67 camera. I'm pretty sure he's just using a wide aperture and medium format gives you really nice out of focus shots like that.

http://www.bowhaus.com/news/brandt.php4said:
MG: How far are you willing to go with Photoshop?
"Photoshop is the best darkroom in the world, but I'm careful not to abuse the possibilities of Photoshop. I try to maintain the integrity of the negative. Otherwise, it's a slippery slope to fabrication."

Hmmmm....I think he and I have very different opinions as to where that line of integrity should be drawn. Beautiful photographs no doubt, but I hate the "If Ansel Adams were alive today, he'd be a photoshop fanatic" argument. It may be true, but it should have no basis on justifying your leniency with photoraphic integrity.

Oh come on! Photoshop is just a tool like a tripod or flash. Just because you use it doesn't mean you have no "photographic integrity". The same thing can be said about using a digital camera. Your not a "real" photographer unless you shoot film. Your not a "real" photographer unless you develop your own film. Your not a "real" photographer if you shoot with a Polaroid or Holga camera. Or your not a "real" photographer unless you shoot medium format, or a view camera. Blah, blah, blah.

I never understand why photographers and "camera owners" turn their noses up at others who use various equipment and techniques to make their photos. I guess its because they can't say anything bad about the photos themselves so instead they "snap" at how they were made.

When photography was in its infancy I remember when painters would also say "real" portraits were done on canvas with pigments and not by some silly box called a camera. :^)

Oh come on! Niko what are you doing now I have to agree with you again, Some of my Favorite pictures are modified to point that they have little to do with the original picture. But they look cool and it took a lot of skill to photoshop them

I think people who are good at photoshop are greatly skilled. Its not an easy program to use and it has taken me over a year to finally be comfortable with layers and masking. The only problem I have is with people who deny using photoshop when the images clearly show that they have.

NikoDoby said:
Oh come on! Photoshop is just a tool like a tripod or flash. Just because you use it doesn't mean you have no "photographic integrity". The same thing can be said about using a digital camera. Your not a "real" photographer unless you shoot film. Your not a "real" photographer unless you develop your own film. Your not a "real" photographer if you shoot with a Polaroid or Holga camera. Or your not a "real" photographer unless you shoot medium format, or a view camera. Blah, blah, blah.

I never understand why photographers and "camera owners" turn their noses up at others who use various equipment and techniques to make their photos. I guess its because they can't say anything bad about the photos themselves so instead they "snap" at how they were made.

When photography was in its infancy I remember when painters would also say "real" portraits were done on canvas with pigments and not by some silly box called a camera. :^)

Niko, I think you are misunderstanding me.
As I said, these are undoubtedly beautiful photos and I really enjoyed looking at them. I think they present these animals and wildlife in a way that's never really been done before, and he does so absolutely beautifully.

That being said, I absolutely don't believe that photoshop is just another tool in "photography". I think photoshop is an amazing program and can accomplish incredible things, the new content aware features are a great example of that. Integrity is not what I'm calling for. What I am calling people like Brandt out on is not making a distinction between what is real and what is fake. It would be one thing if he openly admitted that a huge portion of his work was done in photoshop, but he romanticizes his process as well, making it seem as if these pictures are nearly straight from the camera.

In life it seems that many people want "the real thing", but don't misunderstand me, the real thing doesn't have to be straight and boring and only done through the traditional means, to be the real thing it has to be what it says it is. Why lie about what you are, you know?

heartyfisher said:
But Some people mistake photography with photojournalism which needs the photographic integrity. Photography the art form is free to PP anyway they want!

Hear, hear!

Although I do believe in honesty, foofie, I can see why a photographer would want to keep their technique to themselves, including Photoshop. if you can find a way to imitate a treatment you like, more power to you. This question gets to one of the fundamental questions of photography: What is the purpose of photography?

For photojournalism, arguments like that just won't fly. I remember seeing a ruckus about some photographer (British, I think) in Iraq or Afghanistan who made a composite image of a British soldier and some civilians and got in big trouble for it.http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082

Here's another example: in the 1800s, Mathew Brady didn't make it a secret that he retouched portraits extensively. But when photographing the American Civil War, there is evidence that he moved bodies around and/or posed them for dramatic effect. The first is probably okay. Who cares if your neighbor thinks you look better than you do in real life? Do you outlaw makeup then, too? The second is not okay because he was claiming he was making an accurate historical record. I'm sure there's still a temptation to do something like the posing (like the first photographer I mentioned).

Exactly.
I just believe there are two types of integrity though. Journalistic (which is obviously not what we are talking about) integrity which is very important for obvious reasons, and then Artistic integrity. In this case I take it to mean about what I said before; If you are representing yourself as one thing, and you blatently are not that thing, then you are misusing your tools and that's upsetting to me.

As I said, I think his photos are fantastic, I just wished he'd call them what they are.

True.. "Nature" photography (the category for competitions) has strict rules. I think they think its it is kind of semi journalistic/scientific. But I think Pictorial Nature shots are pretty free with the PP.

NikoDoby said:
His photos are obviously photoshoped to me. There is no way you can get rough edges like that yet still have a sharp subject. The dodging and burning looks photoshop too. Yeah you can do it in the darkroom but it's so much easier to do it in photoshop.

The focus is a result of using medium format with wide apertures and then probably "exaggerated" in photoshop.

Yea, they look to be very heavily photoshopped. That's not necessarily bad, but...

i have look at nicks pics. At first i think it was fake, but they are not so hard to do.
Technical! and with out photoshop.

The thing with "two different planes of focus" is easy. Just use a filter that you put some vaseline on leave the two field were you will have the focus clean. Use a High focus depth. He is a classical shooter with a lot of filters and that's make me wanna do the same again.

But how did he do to get so close to the animals, THAT I want to know!?